task_next

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: prioritization of repair tasks and high-priority tasks, plus READY-state gating. It does not say whether calling it reserves or claims the task, whether it is side-effect free, or what happens when no ready task exists — meaningful omissions for an assignment tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the prioritization rule in a compact parenthetical. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should sketch the return shape, yet it only says it returns 'the next READY task' without indicating what that object contains or the empty/no-ready-task case. Annotation coverage is absent, so a bit more behavioral context would be warranted for a 2-param orchestration tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only marginally reinforces workerId semantics via 'for a worker to claim' and adds nothing about projectId or the relationship between the two.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Returns) and resource (the next READY task) and adds scoping detail: it comes from the dependency DAG and is intended for a worker to claim. It is distinguishable from related siblings by implying retrieval rather than the explicit claim of task_claim, though it never names that sibling, so full sibling differentiation is only inferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by 'for a worker to claim' and the READY-state framing, so an agent can infer this is the polling/assignment entry point after task_create. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over task_claim, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g., must the worker be registered first).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.